Derek Wyatt: When she expects to announce the completion date for digital switchover.

Tessa Jowell: The Government will confirm the timetable once all the remaining issues relating to digital switchover are resolved and we are satisfied that the interests of consumers, especially the most vulnerable, are well protected. The timetable will be set on the basis that it can be met by the broadcasters. The House will note—I have placed written statements to that effect—that the BBC and Ofcom estimate that the completion of switchover can be achieved by 2012.

Derek Wyatt: Sorry—switch over, not switch off.
	Has my right hon. Friend considered that as the south-east is the business engine room for the whole United Kingdom it would be much more sensible for switchover to be simultaneous for Wales and the south-east so that we could, as it were, make more wealth for the whole United Kingdom?

Alan Williams: As the hon. Gentleman well understands, the investigatory role that the NAO carries out on behalf of the House must inevitably be retrospective. In order to retain the independence of that scrutiny, it is important that the NAO does not get involved at too early a stage. Let me report on what I think is a hopeful development, though not yet an achieved result. In November the Office of Government Commerce appeared before the Public Accounts Committee and outlined to us a programme of gateway reviews—key stage reviews—of IT projects across virtually all Departments. When a project is in trouble, the gateway is graded red and the project does not progress until it has been examined. I suggested at that meeting that the National Audit Office should be notified as soon as a project is classified red, and that the NAO should be able to recommend it to us. A couple of weeks later we had the Ministry of Defence before us, which does not operate quite the same system as the OGC, but has a system of its own. I put the same question to the MOD, which has agreed to speak to the NAO, and I am hopeful that we will be able to develop some sort of early warning system in our next report.

Edward Leigh: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question is useful and pertinent, because it underlines the central importance of IT to the political debate? For instance, in the debate on identity cards there was very little mention of the fact that there are huge discussions about the costs will range from £1.1 billion to £3 billion, which is the Government's estimate, or £5 billion, which is the estimate of others, solely because of IT? To give reassurance to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Sir Archy Kirkwood), on Wednesday this week the NAO is publishing a report on patient choice—again, central to the policy debate. The cost of that and its effectiveness will depend crucially on IT. The question underlines the importance of the subject.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I am pleased that, after much debate and discussion in the other place, the Bill has at long last come to the House of Commons. I shall address the details of the Bill in due course, but we must not neglect the fundamental principles driving the reform, namely, the need to modernise our constitution so that our institutions can serve the public in a clearer, more transparent and more effective manner; so that our courts and justice system can be administered by a full-time Minister clearly accountable to Parliament; and so that the relationship between the three arms of the state—Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive—is settled, clarified and easier to understand, in turn making each better fitted to carry out its vital roles in a modern democracy.
	The Bill therefore proposes the reform of the office of Lord Chancellor, removing the blurred lines between political and judicial functions, so that the post-holder, as a full-time Cabinet Minister, can concentrate on the administration of the justice system, no longer sitting as a judge, and we hope no longer tied to the Woolsack in the other place as its presiding officer. The Bill sets up a new judicial appointments commission, an independent body responsible for selecting our judges in the future, and it creates a new supreme court, putting beyond any doubt the independence from politics and the legislature of the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom. There will be a clearer separation of the powers of Parliament, the judiciary and the Executive, and greater confidence in the shape and nature of each branch of our constitution.

Christopher Leslie: I am not a lawyer either, but I think that having a fresh perspective on a particular responsibility is sometimes a benefit, rather than a disadvantage. There are pros and cons on both sides of this argument, but we do not feel that the post-holder should be tied to one particular qualification. That would not be justified by the nature of the new ministerial post.
	The Bill also makes new arrangements for many of the statutory functions of the Lord Chancellor that relate to the judiciary. These will either be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice completely, or be exercised jointly with the Lord Chief Justice, with requirements for consultation or concurrence between them and their counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland as appropriate. This division of responsibilities was agreed between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice and is known as the concordat. Reflecting on this historic agreement, the Lord Chief Justice has commented that:
	"The judiciary considers that the parts of the Bill that reflect the concordat are a highly desirable package of measures designed to ensure the continued independence of the judiciary."
	He added that he
	"would consider it an unsatisfactory situation if the present position were left in place."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 March 2004, Vol. 658, c. 1004.]
	The concordat was presented to Parliament on 26 January last year, and amendments to the Bill were tabled by the Government in the other place to reflect that agreement.

Christopher Leslie: Some parts are in the Bill and some are not. That is by agreement, and we shall no doubt go through those matters at great length in Committee, much of which, hon. Members will be delighted to know, will be held on the Floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to go into that issue in detail later.
	The Bill also places an additional duty on the Lord Chancellor to have regard to defending the continued independence of the judiciary. That duty will also apply, for example, in his handling of the recommendations from the new judicial appointments commission and in funding and running the administration of the courts. Clause 5 amends the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 to ensure that the provisions made by that Act in relation to the guarantee of judicial independence are consistent with the provision made by clause 4.
	Our judiciary will have strengthened independence, but will still have a dialogue with the Government and Parliament. In recognition of the important contribution of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, clause 6 provides that they may table written representations to Parliament on matters relating to the judiciary or the justice system. In addition, the Bill recognises the important role of the Lord Chief Justice in respect of the judiciary. It sets out his responsibilities, including representing the views of the judiciary to the Government, and the training, guidance, welfare and deployment of the judiciary of England and Wales.
	The role of the Lord Chancellor in delivering the concordat will be fundamental. It has been agreed between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor that functions of the Lord Chancellor that relate to the judiciary and the court system should not, in future, be transferable away from that Minister without primary legislation. That is set out in clause 17. It is another protection that the Chairman of the Committee has mentioned.
	I turn now to the question of who will act as the presiding officer of the other place. The Government continue to believe that, for a busy Minister of the Crown, sitting also as a Speaker or presiding officer over a House of Parliament is a heavy burden indeed. We therefore take the view that the House of Lords should have the benefit of a presiding officer who can devote his or her time solely to its service.
	Ultimately, of course, decisions on who should be the presiding officer of the other place are a matter for their Lordships themselves as part of the Standing Orders of the House of Lords, which currently stipulate that the duties form part of the role of the Lord Chancellor. But it is undoubtedly odd that any House of Parliament should automatically accept the appointee of the Prime Minister as its Speaker or presiding officer, a state of affairs not conducive to the supremacy of Parliament in our constitution. The Bill therefore helps to facilitate the process now in train in the other place about who might take on that aspect of the Lord Chancellor's current functions. The House of Lords has not yet formed its view, nor decided the title of that presiding officer.
	Part 2 of the Bill therefore allows the statutory functions of the Lord Chancellor, in his capacity as Speaker of the other place, to be exercised by anyone who fills that role in future.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he allows me to clarify a point that I made in an intervention. I believe that Lord Justice Potter will make an extremely good president of the family division and I have no criticism of his judicial qualities. However, I am worried about the illogic of the Government's position. On the one hand, they advocate modernisation of the judicial appointments system, yet on the other they appoint a judge—as it happens, an excellent judge—by old-fashioned means. I heard the Under-Secretary's comments, but it is deeply unconvincing of him to try to advance one argument for after the Bill is enacted, yet rely on the much-criticised system that pertains before enactment.

David Heath: It is important for Members who are not lawyers to contribute to the debate. Otherwise, there is a danger that it will become a dialogue between hon. and learned Members, and the measure is far too important for that to happen.
	At the outset, I should say that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill—but, my goodness, the Government have made it difficult for us to do so during its genesis. I do not accept the enormity of the problems portrayed by the Conservatives, and I do not believe that the supposed furore extends far beyond people with a particular and special interest in the proposals. Indeed, although excellent points were made in the debates in another place and by the Committees that considered the Bill, there was a great deal of trade unionism—people protecting their own interests rather than looking at the wider aspirations of the proposals.
	The Bill is an important measure in anyone's book. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has been cited a couple of times already, but it is worth underlining what he said on 7 December in the House of Lords:
	"the Bill marks a gigantic step forward in our constitutional arrangements. Above all, it means that the future independence of the judiciary will be safer than it has ever been."
	We support that important aspiration. Lord Woolf went on to say:
	"if we value an independent judiciary and its task in protecting our personal freedoms, we should ensure that this Bill reaches the statute book."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 2004: Vol. 667, c. 759.]
	That does not display the doubts which, it was intimated earlier, the Lord Chief Justice entertained. Of course he had doubts in the initial stages, but they have been resolved by patient consideration of the Bill in another place.

David Heath: That is my view. That is the view that I will express in Committee when we reach that stage. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman, and I will make it plain that some of my noble Friends, many of whom have legal qualifications, take a different view. However, from this Bench in this place, I shall express the view that the legal qualification is not a necessary part of the equation.
	I now move on to the proposals for the Supreme Court. This is a significant move but not a revolutionary one. It is absurd to suggest that it is. It is confusing and pointless that we have a Supreme Court already, with absurd names such as the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council acting in its constitutional role, and we choose to call the members of the Supreme Court the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, and Lords of Appeal in Ordinary is exactly what they are not, and nobody should suggest that they are.
	We have a senior court which is not the House of Lords despite the fact that people think that it is. It is a separate body of judges that happens to sit, rather uncomfortably, within that edifice. It has an entirely different function, as has already been argued in this debate, and very often Law Lords do not exercise their role within the legislature, and nor should they because that puts them in an invidious position in dealing with their primary responsibilities.
	We have fictions built on fictions built on fictions. Because I believe that we should be a modern democracy where things are as clear as possible—although nothing in the law can be entirely clear—it is helpful to the general public to understand that we already have a Supreme Court that is a separate entity and fulfils a particular function, and that the members of that Supreme Court are the senior judiciary of the land.
	As regards judicial appointments, I wholly support the proposals, with one caveat. In Committee we need to do justice to the concerns expressed by Sir Colin Campbell and the Commission for Judicial Appointments about the structure and role of the proposed judicial appointments commission. We ought to be careful to assess the validity of those concerns.
	In general terms, there is much to support in the proposals. I welcome the enhanced role of the Lord Chief Justice. As I said, I should like to explore whether the Attorney-General should have further express duties. The holder of that office sometimes plays a more significant constitutional role than we give credit for. It is a developing role, and transparency and clarity about what is expected of the Attorney-General, particularly in giving unequivocal advice, perhaps when that is not sought, on the appropriateness or legality of Government actions, might be an enhancement of the role.

David Heath: I do not deny that there are difficulties, but they can be overcome. That is the position that the Government have now adopted. The debate has been wonderfully amplified by having a recorder on each side of the Chamber, acting in stereo. I hope the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) will have a chance to contribute to the debate formally.
	Will the Minister confirm that under the Bill as it is currently formulated there will be two supreme courts—the supreme court of the United Kingdom and the Supreme Court of England and Wales, as presently in statute? Will he confirm that he will remove one of those nomenclatures before the Bill reaches its final stages, as there is the potential for confusion with two "supremes" in one statute.
	It is extremely important that we get the funding right. I will not tease the hon. Member for Beaconsfield about how he would achieve cuts in the Department. That was dealt with in an earlier intervention. We cannot allow the important process of justice to be curtailed by a lack of funding. The funding must be predictable, so that those who administer the court can do so with certainty.

David Kidney: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially for that advice.
	If anyone looks at the Register of Members' Interests, they will see that I have only one entry, which is as a non-practising solicitor, so I have no practical interest in the debate. However, as a former solicitor, I strongly support the Law Society's long-running campaign for more judges to be appointed from the country's body of solicitors. If I mention that from time to time during my contribution, that is the reason. It is certainly not from any personal expectation of reward if more solicitors become judges.
	I welcome the Bill's commitment to the rule of law, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) dealt with at some length in his contribution, and the statutory pronouncement of judicial independence, which is an improvement on the present status of the law and gives a statutory underpinning to the safeguards that we enjoy—the safeguard against arbitrary government, the safeguarding of our human rights.
	On the separation of powers, those hon. Members who have mentioned Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689–1755) have been unfair to the gentleman, who was an influential philosopher and a judge—as it happens—in France and whose influence was sufficiently long-lasting for his views on the separation of powers to be accepted quite fully in the writing of the original American constitution. It is true that he had an idealistic view of the benefits of the so-called separation of powers in this country at the time that he viewed it, which I think was in 1748, but he probably was not that far wrong at that time in the development of our unwritten constitution. As a snapshot at that time, the Executive was very much represented by the Crown and the Ministers who advised the Crown, the legislature was a nascent and growing House of Commons and, effectively, an established House of Lords, and the judges were independent of both, which was what impressed him in his thinking and writing. Time has moved on and he did not foresee the growth of an Executive with the legislature in this country. What is so different here today is the way in which the Executive dominates the legislature. Happily, the Executive do not dominate the judiciary, and the Bill is here to ensure that no future development in our unwritten constitution changes that. That is why the Bill is welcome.
	Just to finish with the Baron, he did say:
	"The political liberty of the subject is a tranquillity of mind",
	and on the loss of liberty he said:
	"there is no liberty if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."
	I agree with him on that.

Alan Beith: I am not sure that today's debate is a very good example of the stewardship of time. I like to think that we could have more time for these proceedings on the Floor of the House, but with discipline in how efficiently we used it to ensure that a number of important detailed points are considered.
	I want mainly to refer to what the Constitutional Affairs Committee has said and done on the matter, and the extent to which our concerns have so far been met. As several hon. Members have said, the problems go back to the way that the matter was introduced, as a back-of-the-envelope decision in a reshuffle. When one is reshuffling one's Ministers, one does not call them in a fortnight before and say, "I'm planning to do this. What do you think? Will you get your officials to do me a paper about it?" The previous Lord Chancellor was no doubt told at 3 o'clock in the afternoon that his services were no longer required and that his advice on the proposals or that of his officials was not needed.
	That is a hopeless way to embark on constitutional reform and it was particularly galling for those of us who broadly support the measures that the Government want to take. They managed to convey the impression that the proposals were designed to weaken and politicise the judiciary, which is precisely the reverse of the intention and, I hope, of the effect. The way that the matter was introduced made it much more difficult to argue for the reforms in principle and then get the detail right.
	The problems that the Bill is designed to solve are primarily ones of principle and perception, not of practice, except in judicial appointments, to which several references have been made. I welcome the agreement that has now emerged on the necessity for a form of judicial appointments commission. Even in that case, no one is arguing that the most senior judicial appointments in recent years have been other than very good, or that the quality of our judiciary is not envied around the world, but we can still make improvements and there are certainly people who are excluded from the judiciary.
	That was the main motivation for changing the system in Scotland, which took on a judicial appointments committee under the guidance of my friend and former parliamentary colleague, the Deputy First Minister, then the Justice Minister, Jim Wallace. That was partly because there was a feeling in many parts of the Scottish legal system that people were overlooked for judicial appointments because they were not part of the Edinburgh mafia, as it tends to be called, and partly because Scotland had a more recent history of political appointments to the judiciary than England and Wales. When we examined the system in an earlier report, we found that it was working reasonably well and were hopeful that an appointments commission, admittedly on the much larger scale required for England and Wales, would be of real benefit.
	When the reforms were announced, the Select Committee set about working and reporting on them, building on the work that we had already done on the judicial appointments commission. Most of the Committee's recommendations have been taken up by the Government, some willingly, some reluctantly in response to further pressure in the Lords and some on the basis of defeats in the Lords, a number of which the Government do not propose to reverse. Some of what we were saying was bolstered by the concordat between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, which the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said was a successful piece of negotiation. Indeed, it has been referred to with a degree of envy by the Lords Chief Justice of several other countries as an impressive example of how to play one's cards effectively. The Lord Chief Justice did us all a service by getting certain things firmly clarified and accepted on all sides.
	Among the things that we said was that the Bill is so important that it should be introduced as draft legislation and given proper consideration. The Government rejected that, but the objective was achieved by the decision of the House of Lords to set up a Select Committee and the decision alongside that, by all parties, to allow the Bill to be carried over into this Session. If that had not happened, it would have been rushed through, if the Lords had agreed at all, in the previous Session, and that would have been bad news. I have to say that I disagreed with my Front-Bench colleagues on that. In their determination to support the proposals, they felt unhappy about supporting the motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. The end result of the process is that the Bill has had much better consideration and can still be introduced within a reasonable time.
	Another recommendation that we made related to the fact that the court is partly a United Kingdom court and partly the final appeal court in the separate jurisdictions of Scotland and Northern Ireland. None of that had been thought through when the proposals were first produced. I do not think that a moment's consideration had been given to that. We asked many questions and produced a lot of detailed information, and, to be fair to them, the Government responded fully, made significant amendments to the Bill and clarified a number of matters crucial to Scotland and significant also in Northern Ireland.
	We also argued not only that supreme court judges should not be in the Lords—that is certainly my view—but that if there was any prospect of retired judges being appointed to the House of Lords while it continues in its present form, either all of them should be so appointed, or none of them. There should be no question of the Government picking those supreme court judges that they liked for preferment to the House of Lords. That would be undesirable and the Government accepted our view on that, too.
	We stressed heavily the importance of the court's independence, including its financial independence. We felt that its financial and operational independence needed to be guaranteed and that its budget needed to be secure. We looked at examples, and at Australia in particular, to see how that could be done. To a large extent, that has been accepted. The Department for Constitutional Affairs is still involved, but the chief executive will be an accounting officer in his own right and several detailed improvements have gone some way to meet the Committee's recommendations.
	We also felt strongly that the court should not operate until it had its own premises. The problem of perception could not be dealt with by having roughly the same people sitting in the same building—the House of Lords—being served by the same staff, and by saying that some new supreme court had been created. We therefore welcome the fact that the Government accepted that the court needs its own building before it can start work properly. My view was that, if everything else could be settled, Middlesex Guildhall was the right place. I disagreed with Lord Bingham on that, but he is getting much of what he wants anyway, so we can reasonable argue with him on the merits of which building to use.
	The Committee felt that the Lord Chief Justice should be primarily responsible for discipline and that that should not be a role for the new-style Lord Chancellor or whatever kind of Minister was to come. That, too, has largely been accepted and to a significant extent was sorted out in the concordat.
	We strongly recommended an appointments commission, but even we did not anticipate how many versions of judicial appointment would emerge at the end of the process. Effectively, we have a three-tier process—an appointments system for the supreme court, an appointments system for the higher judiciary and an appointments system for all the lower ranks of the judiciary. For the first two, judges are very prominent indeed. Again, the Lord Chief Justice's negotiating skills played a significant part. That will have met, to a degree, the concern of the majority of my Committee that the commission should be chaired by a judge—not a view that I shared. It is a rare occasion on which my view is defeated by a Committee that I chair and a situation that I try at all times to avoid.
	The Committee expressed some strong views on the role of Lord Chancellor. We said that part of that role
	"is the protection of the judiciary from political pressure in Cabinet and, when necessary, in public."
	The previous Lord Chancellor was prepared to act in such a way, and did so on one occasion in front of the Committee. In paragraph 13 of the report, we said:
	"There is a radical difference between on the one hand a Lord Chancellor, who as a judge is bound by a judicial oath, who has a special constitutional importance enjoyed by no other member of the Cabinet and who is usually at the end of his career (and thus without temptations associated with possible advancement) and on the other hand a minister who is a full-time politician, who is not bound by any judicial oath and who may be a middle-ranking or junior member of the Cabinet with hopes of future promotion."
	The Minister smiles—whether he sees himself in that position in future, I do not know.
	The Committee felt strongly that such independence was important and we were regularly confirmed in our views by outbursts from Ministers that seemed to some of us to be somewhat threatening towards the judiciary. There was a classic example of that from the previous Home Secretary, who when addressing the Police Federation—a good occasion on which to get a cheer from the gallery—said, "We only want judges who will help us to do our job." That was not a good basis on which to set out the proposals. It further underlined—certainly in my mind—the importance of retaining a Minister who accepted responsibility in Cabinet for sometimes slapping down other Ministers who did not recognise the importance of judicial independence.
	We anticipated something that the Government did not anticipate: how important the issue had become. The Government did not seem to think it terribly significant, even as the consultation went on, but it became clear that among members of the judiciary in particular the status of Lord Chancellor was regarded as an important safeguard for their position. We recommended that the office of Lord Chancellor should remain, at least for the time being, in its more restricted form—shorn of judicial appointments and, almost certainly, of responsibility for chairing proceedings in the House of Lords. I welcomed the Government's ultimate acceptance of that when it came by way of amendment in the Lords.
	I personally do not think that it is essential that the Lord Chancellor should either be in the House of Lords or be a lawyer, but I am still concerned about how we achieve the Committee's objective of ensuring that the Lord Chancellor is not awaiting further political advancement and has the authority to challenge other Ministers on this most fundamental issue. I can think of many people who could do the job who are neither lawyers nor Members of the House of Lords, so I am not especially attracted by the amendments that their lordships passed as a result, to a large extent, of such motivation. Ministers must think further about the matter, so that we can ensure that the person who holds the office of Lord Chancellor and is responsible for relations with the judiciary has the status, authority and independence that he needs to be able to do that job.
	I shall mention one other area that has not attracted much attention. The proposals on ecclesiastical appointments arose out of the original intention to remove the Lord Chancellor altogether. At the end of the day, the Government decided to move the appointments to the Crown, thus allowing them to continue to be made by the same people who are making them at the moment in No. 10 Downing street. That reflected the evidence session that the Committee held on the subject. We did not make any recommendations, but we had an interesting evidence session in which much the weight of the evidence was to the effect, "Do not disturb this system, it is working very well." Those who wanted to change it could not agree on what to change it to. The argument that the matter should be left in the hands of public servants, who were unusually highly commended in the Committee's proceedings, clearly weighed with the Government.
	On a large number of issues, the Committee's work was well justified, because it influenced the course of events. Many of our recommendations have been accepted, either willingly or slightly unwillingly by the Government, and we shall consider what happens in Standing Committee with the hope of reporting to the House prior to Report any further conclusions that we might reach.

Jonathan Djanogly: I declare my interest as a practising solicitor. It is good that a fair balance of lawyers and non-lawyers have spoken. We have had an interesting debate, but given the Government's proposals, it has not been satisfactory.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and other colleagues made clear, the constitutional proposals in the Bill began life as a slapdash press release from Downing street. One and a half years later, the Government's proposals remain as ill conceived as ever and insult has been added to injury because they have refused to allow such serious constitutional issues to be considered fully in Committee on the Floor of the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshirejy (Mr. Heald) powerfully explained. My hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) supported that point.
	The official Opposition will not oppose constitutional reforms that genuinely benefit this country, even when they are contained in such an unfortunate Bill. We accept the premise of the concordat and the redefining of the relationship between the judiciary and the Government for the reasons succinctly expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells and others. We thus do not object to the judicial appointments commission as long as merit, rather than a candidate's political views or crony potential, remains the sole criterion for the selection of judges.
	The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) broadened the argument about the commission by suggesting that there should be a greater mix of gender and ethnicity and more solicitor judges. The hon. Member for Stafford supported a more evolutionary approach, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Redcar was slightly more revolutionary.
	We will not, however, support the acts of constitutional vandalism proposed in the Bill. What my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield called the unedifying spectacle of the undermining of the historical office of Lord Chancellor and the creation of an unnecessary new supreme court are not changes that we believe the House ought to accept. Concerns about the Government's plans have been eloquently expressed, both in this place and throughout the Bill's passage in the other place.
	I should like to address some of the interesting, and sometimes persuasive, arguments that we have heard today. Various hon. Members have considered the office of the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) explained the importance with which different groups view the role and its independence. We are still shocked by the Government's determination to mount an assault on this long-standing and constitutionally vital position. Indeed, it is only as a result of an Opposition amendment in another place that the Lord Chancellor has not been wiped clean off the face of the Bill.
	In supporting the Bill for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a wide-ranging speech, which included his views on banning all Ministers in the other place and developing the role of the Attorney-General. I do not agree with him that a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will have a stronger position in Cabinet than an unelected Lord Chancellor. We believe that the Lord Chancellor has, and should have, a vital role in upholding the rule of law and as the guardian of judicial independence. He should continue to act as the key link between the judiciary and the Executive, and his influence over constitutional matters should be maintained through the tenure of a senior Cabinet post.
	Their lordships took a further opportunity to defeat the Government in the other place. In doing so, they secured an amendment to the effect that the Lord Chancellor must always be a member of the other place, as is the convention at present. That requirement would underline his ongoing constitutional role. He would also continue to assist in placing at least some distance between him and the political pressures of this place. Another Opposition amendment ensured that the Lord Chancellor will also need to have gained experience as a senior lawyer or judge. To undertake their delicate role, future Lord Chancellors must continue to be equipped with experience of interpreting the law.
	The Minister today announced the Government's intention to reverse those improvements to the Bill. After the significant work in the other place, that is regrettable. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, both the requirement for membership of another place and that for senior legal experience will help to attract individuals who should be less susceptible to any political influence. As he eloquently put it, they will not give two hoots for preferment or patronage. We welcome that.
	I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire that the Lord Chancellor has the inherent power to stand up to Prime Ministers. He and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) also made the important point that, had we not had the Law Lords in the upper Chamber, the content of the Bill, as it was delivered to this House, would be much worse.
	My right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Wells, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham spoke of how style and convention is vital to the work of the Lord Chancellor and effective in practice. That includes the power of advice and influence, which needs professional expertise. A system that has taken 1,000 years to build is now, it is said, to be sacked in two years. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar said that it was unacceptable that members of the Executive should be able to appoint the judiciary, but spoke in rather absolute terms that do not always reflect the subtlety of our constitutional process.
	Many hon. Members spoke of the Government's proposal to create a supreme court, which is also the focus of our reasoned amendment. In creating such a court, the only outcomes that appear guaranteed are unnecessary upheaval and unwarranted cost. The Government's starting estimate is for £30 million of set-up costs, but we all know how good they are at building estimates. Furthermore, an estimated £8.8 million of annual running costs for the new court stands in marked contrast to current running costs of a little over £168,000 a year. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells mentioned how the situation is being exacerbated by proposals to increase court fees to litigants.
	What do we stand to gain in return for that hefty investment? The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords is admired at home and abroad for the quality of its rulings, as hon. Members have said. The work of the Law Lords would not change in a new supreme court, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. How would rehousing the Law Lords add anything to the excellence for which they are so rightly renowned? There may be some practical difficulties with the present arrangements, but why not explore further the suggestions made in another place for improving the facilities available to the Appellate Committee at Westminster?
	The Government seem to think that the public are in total confusion over the role of the Appellate Committee and, worse still, they question the Committee's independence. I concede that a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary may not be a household name, but the role of the Law Lords as final arbiters of British justice is widely recognised in this country. We think that the public see clearly how well the country's highest court works and see no need to change it. A change of name would not produce some sudden breakthrough in public understanding. If anything, new questions would be thrown up. If a shiny new supreme court would prove so independent of Parliament, why would Parliament continue to be supreme over it?
	The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and the Scottish National party seem to be jumping on the bandwagon and want to use the proposals as an opportunity for the repatriation of jurisdiction to Scottish courts. As to the public's opinion, how would the court command more respect by moving from the nation's seat of power to less prestigious surroundings? The Law Lords might instead be perceived as ensconced in some ivory tower, delivering judgments detached from the real decision making in Parliament.
	The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) made a serious and measured speech on access to justice, but his comparison with Zimbabwe reinforced our contention that what we have in this country works pretty well. Separation of powers does not require the Law Lords to be evicted from Parliament, just as the Government are not proposing that the Executive need to be prised from the legislature.
	In noting the disagreement between the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and Lord Bingham, I add that the functions of the Appellate Committee would not change with a new building, nor would the impartiality with which the Law Lords undertake their work. The Government's arguments on the point seem theoretical at best and, at worst, represent a failure to recognise the overall constitutional balance that works in this country.
	The integrity and independence of the Appellate Committee are not in question. As many hon. Members have attested, the scrupulous conduct of the Law Lords in another place already bears witness to their independence. Even the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 has not challenged that legitimacy. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and others have noted, removing the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary from Parliament would only impoverish the quality of debates and legislation arising in the other place. The Law Lords would likewise stand to lose something: the benefit of their proximity to the heart of government. In short, our present arrangements are effective and respected. The Government's demand for a supreme court risks damaging that position, at significant financial cost and for few if any tangible benefits.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal warned, showing his experience of government and, incidentally, of a happy marriage, this is a Government of words, not action. He showed how we have not been given details of how the plans will work, while we know that what we have works now. He powerfully called for a return to courtesy being shown towards this place.
	We must resist any further attempts by this Government to modernise purely for the sake of ticking another box in Labour's modernisation agenda. Enough parliamentary time has already been spent on measures that are not a priority for the British public. Like us, they will not understand why millions of pounds should be spent needlessly on a supreme court given that the Law Lords have proved so adept at their work. Similarly, they will not comprehend a Government who seek to abolish in the Lord Chancellor a Minister who for hundreds of years has helped to ensure that the rule of law is respected by the Executive. The Government are forcing through their constitutional hobby-horses with inadequate justification.
	In those circumstances and for the reasons that I have set out, I ask the House to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill and in favour of the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and I.

Edward Garnier: In his speech, the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), had to admit that rooms to replace the eight or nine Crown court rooms in the Guildhall must be found elsewhere in London. Where is that building to be found, when will it be completedand what will it cost?

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1.   The following shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House—
	(a)   Clauses 1 to 7, 20, 21, 37, 94, 95 and 105 to 109;
	(b)   Schedule 8;
	(c)   any new Clauses amending section 12 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002;
	(d)   any new Clauses relating to matters connected with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as reserved or excepted matters under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
	2.   The remainder of the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Committee
	3.   (1)   Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.
	(2)   Those proceedings shall be taken on each of those days as shown in the following table and shall be taken in the order shown there.
	(3)   Proceedings on each of those days shall (as far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.
	(4)   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day   
			 Clauses 1, 4, 6 and 7 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill 
			 Clause 5, any new Clauses amending section 12 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, Clauses 2 and 3 The moment of interruption or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Clause 5, whichever is the later 
			 Second day 
			 Clauses 20 and 21, any new Clauses relating to matters connected with the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom as reserved or excepted matters under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, Clause 37, Schedule 8, Clause 109 Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill 
			 Clauses 105 to 108, 94 and 95 The moment of interruption or three hours after the commencement of proceedings on Clause 105, whichever is the later 
		
	
	4.   (1)   Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 24th February 2005.
	(2)   The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	5.   When the provisions of the Bill considered, respectively, by the Committee of the whole House and by the Standing Committee have been reported to the House, the Bill shall be proceeded with as if it had been reported as a whole to the House from the Standing Committee.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	6.   Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	7.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	8.   Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	9.   Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any Message from the Lords) may be programmed.—Mr. Watson.]
	The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 161.

Keith Vaz: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right and I agree with everything that he said. I hope later in my speech to point out what can be done.
	Most games are harmless entertainment, but in many amazingly lifelike popular titles, children are acting out violent experiences on their screens. According to the Video Standards Council, 97 per cent. of all games are suitable for everyone. The few that qualify for careful scrutiny contain the following material. Players in "Grand Theft Auto 3" earn points by carjacking and stealing drugs from street people and pushers. In "Carmageddon", players are rewarded for mowing down pedestrians—sounds of cracking bones add to the realistic effect. The first-person shooter in "Duke Nukem" hones his skills by using pornographic posters of women for target practice, and earns bonus points for shooting naked and bound prostitutes and strippers who beg, "Kill me." In the game "Postal", players act out the part of the postal dude, who earns points by randomly shooting everyone who appears, including people walking out of church and members of a high school band. Postal dude is programmed to say, "Only my gun understands me."
	Unlike films and television, which are passively watched, the game lets the player feel the sensation of committing violent acts. Those playing the game are in the game, but there is no pain or aftermath, so children never learn the real-life consequences. The main concern is that children, unlike adults—and rightly so—have a problem in separating fantasy from reality. When young children play those violent video games, they are becoming more and more vulnerable to those violent messages.
	Following a public outcry, I convened a meeting with a few parliamentarians and the members of the video games industry to highlight the ambiguities in the current system. Towards the end of last year, in a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the House, Mrs. Pakeerah and I urged him to tackle the menace of violent video games by examining the existing law governing the classification of video games—in particular, their labelling—and requesting the governing board to take a more cautious approach. My right hon. Friend made it clear at the meeting that he was looking at ways to strengthen legislation in the area to protect children. He listened with great care and attention to Mrs. Pakeerah and I am most grateful to him for his real concern about the issue.
	I wish to make it clear that the campaign is not about stopping adults doing anything: it is about protecting our children. Following the firm commitment by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to protect children and to review the law governing video games, I value the opportunity to debate the issue in this House.
	Over the years, there have been more than 3,000 research studies into the effects of screen violence, encompassing film, television, video and, more recently, computer and video games. However, little research has been carried out on interactive entertainment as it was originally perceived as a harmless and enjoyable pastime. Nevertheless, with the ever-increasing interest and participation of young children in that activity, much concern has been expressed about the effects of such games on them. At the centre of the debate is the question of whether they are detrimental to a young person's healthy development. There are specific concerns about the implications for aggression, addiction, criminal activity and reduced academic achievement.
	I understand that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is commissioning a review of existing research to determine whether there is a link between playing violent video games and real-world behaviour. The last such Government study was carried out by the Home Office in 2001, and the results were inconclusive. Research into the effects of long-term exposure to computer games on subsequent behaviour is noticeably lacking and at present remains speculative. Studies to examine the effects of computer games on children's aggressive behaviour and self-esteem only involve measurement of the possible short-term aggressive consequences, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to fill that question vacuum and commission new research into the long-term effects of playing such interactive games.
	Last week, accompanied by Mrs. Pakeerah, I visited the third largest interactive publisher in the UK, Activision based in Slough, to see how publishers classify video games. Activision is a leading international publisher of video games, with 6 per cent. of the market share; its European headquarters is in the United Kingdom. Its profits for last year are estimated at just over £100 million. Some of its games include "Doom 3", "X-Men" and "Spider-Man".From my visit, I learned that violence in over-18 video games is a staple of the video game industry. It takes between 20 and 60 people to develop an idea for a game and between 12 and 18 months to create it. The entire investment period can take up to three years. During that time, the board responsible for classifying the video game is called in to give expertise about the rating to be given to the game and about its target audience.
	At the early stages in the creation of the video, the publisher foresees, using guidelines set out by the video games classification board, which rating the game should receive. Once the creation of the game is complete, using the pan-European game information system, the ratings are carried out by members of the games industry using a self-assessment form. After examining a game, the in-house coder uses an existing set of answers and the game is rated automatically on that basis. An age is established for each content category, based on the answers on the assessment form.
	The method may sound fair but in action, as I witnessed when I visited Activision, the game does not end up with the British Board of Film Classification until after it has been produced. Thus, using the Video Standards Council and PEGI guidelines, the publisher will resort to reviewing the game again if it has been rejected. I urge the British Board of Film Classification to take a much more cautious approach in reviewing those games, and also to provide publishers with much more stringent and unambiguous guidelines and detailed feedback about why a video game has failed to qualify for a particular rating. With advances in the technology to create those games, it is only sensible that the guidelines for publishers be updated.
	Ten years ago, the average game cost £200,000 to develop, whereas now the average budget is more than £1 million. The level of violence in the gaming habits of young people is disturbingly high, and 65 per cent. of the market is made up of boys aged between 13 and 16 years. On 1 November, the ITV programme "Tonight with Trevor McDonald" revealed from a nationwide survey of 223 children aged between 11 and 14 that computer games featuring drugs, sex and violence are being bought by boys as young as 12 in supermarkets and high street shops. More than two thirds of young people aged between 11 and 14 admitted that they had played games certified 18 plus. Boys aged 12 to 14 were seen in the programme buying adult games from Tesco, Virgin, Dixons, John Lewis, Sainsbury and Asda. The programme highlighted the problem that it is so easy for children to get hold of those games. Something needs to change.
	Any shopkeeper who supplies a game in breach of the law can be sent to jail for six months, fined £5,000, or both. The law needs to be better enforced. To date, the retailers caught on the Trevor McDonald programme have not been prosecuted. According to the Video Standards Council, which also represents a large number of the UK retailers shown in the film, because the action was recorded for television people should not be liable to prosecution. I therefore urge Minister to ask the Attorney-General to review that absurdity and prosecute those retailers for their actions, so that, in future, retailers can fully appreciate the consequence of selling adult-rating video games to children. We need to make an example of one to make the rest take this seriously.
	Parents are becoming very concerned about the messages that their children are receiving while playing such games. Parents need to be made more aware that video games are much more difficult and more ingenious than ping-pong and that they contain such violent activity. An interesting approach was launched in Canada last year, ahead of the Christmas shopping period, entitled "Commitment to Parents". A voluntary code was provided whereby parents entered into a dialogue with the retailers, thus enabling progress to be made to the benefit of parents and young children.
	Video and computer games will continue to be an exciting and growing part of children's media diets. As long as children have easy access to those games, policy debates will continue. There is much that is pernicious, banal and crude in popular culture. We must question what kind of society allows, if not encourages, youngsters to immerse themselves in such brutal fantasy games. Makers of the more violent games are pushing the outer limits of savagery and depravity, and current provisions have been widely criticised as ineffectual and confusing, so they need to be changed.
	I urge the Minister to do a number of things, and I seek her commitment on them. More research is needed into the long-term effects of playing such interactive games and their effect on children. Better regulation is needed, with much more clear and stringent guidelines, including transparent responsibility between the BBFC, the Entertainment and Leisure Software Publishers Association and PEGI. The current voluntary arrangements are too cosy. A more instructive and uniform labelling system is needed for parents to comprehend. Parents need to be educated, so that they become more aware of the content of games. The law must be better enforced. Retailers must be made aware of their responsibilities and prosecuted when they break the law.
	The tragic death of Stefan Pakeerah will be with his parents, family and friends for ever. I hope that this debate can shed light into the current ambiguities and prevent further callous attacks from happening again.

Estelle Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) not only on securing this Adjournment debate but on the campaign that he has waged relentlessly on behalf of his constituents and, in doing so, on behalf of many parents and many citizens of this country. I acknowledge that the debate follows a meeting with the Prime Minister, questions asked in the House and, as he informed us today, a visit to the industry itself. I thank him for raising these difficult issues, which we ought to address.
	I also acknowledge the intervention made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The fact that he stayed for a short Adjournment debate shows his commitment, and I thank him for his interest. If he wishes, we will keep him informed of what we are able to do.
	I wish to put the issue into a wider context. We are all struck by the fact that this fast-growing, fast-moving industry uses technology that was not around when we were children and parents must become involved in something that is more unfamiliar to them than it is to their children. There is a danger that regulation enforcement follows the trend. As regulation catches up with a new invention, another new invention comes along. I make no criticism of anyone, but bureaucracy and government, both locally and nationally, can be slow and cumbersome in trying to ensure that it catches up.
	It is important to recognise that the games industry is a huge British success story. It earns money for us, and it earns us standing in the European and worldwide community. It is a good thing, and we are good at it. Most of the games, not those that have been mentioned this evening, add to the education, entertainment and cultural well-being of our nation—I would not want to suggest anything else—but, clearly, there is an issue with those that are violent or teach people how to commit crimes, and I would not want to pretend for a minute that such games do not exist.
	There might be an element of repetition, but I want to go over where we are, what has happened since my hon. Friend met the Prime Minister and where we might go in the future.
	The current position on classifying video games is important and it comes in two parts. First, under section 2 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, computer games are exempt from statutory classification unless they depict gross violence, human sexual activity or techniques likely to be useful in the commission of offences. As my hon. Friend said, about 30 games—about 2 per cent.—are referred each year to the British Board of Film Classification and they can be given an age rating that can be over 18.I do not have a feel for whether that figure is an indication that an insufficient number of games are being referred and that the relationship is too cosy. I do not have the evidence to go on, but I take the point that it could become too cosy. I want to give more thought to whether the statistic of 30, or 2 per cent. a year, is what one might expect to be referred to the BBFC given the nature of the industry.
	As my hon. Friend said, the United Kingdom has been involved in a pan-European system since 2003. It is a voluntary age-related classification system—the PEGI—that the Video Standards Council administers. As we know, these games cross national boundaries and we could find ourselves in the position in which an excellent UK classification and enforcement system went out of the window because games were being downloaded in the UK. As much cross-nation work as we can possibly do is important. That is why I welcome the Video Standards Council's administration of the PEGI system in the UK. As my hon. Friend, said it is an offence to sell video games to someone not of the age to buy them.
	Since my hon. Friend met the Prime Minister and representatives of our Department in early December, we have done what we can to improve the system. First, we held a meeting with all the representatives of the trade association, and that was a direct consequence of the meeting that my hon. Friend had. It involved the trade associations for the computer games and video games industries, the BBFC, video games retailers, the Video Standards Council and local government enforcement agencies.
	A number of things have emerged from that voluntary meeting. First, those at the meeting agreed that they would consider a new code of practice for retailers selling the games. That will be drawn up together with training and regulation of sales. That sounds good, and it is a voluntary code. That is where we are at the moment, and we need to see how it goes. It is important because the people selling the games will be personally liable for the consequences of any offence if they should be found guilty.
	I take the point made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about parents understanding their responsibilities. Many parents who would not dream of letting their child see an X-rated film are less understanding of the need to monitor their child's behaviour and activity with video games. They did not play such games when they were children and they have to rush to catch up with what is happening. My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who shares Government responsibility with my Department for this issue, reminded parents of that before Christmas. Much more needs to be done, and the Government and the industry have to take responsibility to make sure that we inform more parents about what is happening.